I'm no hippy (honest) and I'm no Arlo Guthrie fan, although I did enjoy this album. I am, however, a big fan of your website and can't thank you enough for the hours of amusement the reviews have provided me with.

However, I think you're very wrong about this film. Now, it's been a while -- about 15 or 20 years -- since I saw it, but I remember being surprised at how bleak and bitter it is, at how critical it is of the whole idealistic 60s thing. I'm disappointed that you're quite so hard on it. I don't think it's a bad film at all. A little dated, certainly, but it does its bit for casting a discerning eye on the decade that's too often idealised or trashed.

"The outright mocking of tradition and what other people held dear was not free expression. People called it free expression, but that was just a masquerade. In reality, it was a very mean-spirited insult intended to hurt and offend those being mocked. When they weren't trying to insult squares, they still managed to, because they would do things without thinking about others.

My problem with the 60's is that, despite the message, deep down it was all about 'Me.'

Yes, I believe in free speech and free expression. I did not say that the members of the commune should be tear gassed and beaten with metal batons. However, free speech or not, it does not mean I should think they are great people for acting like they do. "

The thing that's interesting to me about this movie, is that guy that plays---Roger, is it, the one that wears glasses?---I forget his actual name, but I watched this movie a few months back, and I saw that guy and I thought: he looks familiar to me, it seems like I've seen him before. I could've sworn that he used to be in some old band I'd seen years ago. Well, I 'googled' the guys' name (having just watched the movie) and the ONLY thing I could tell that he was 'famous' for, was this very movie, that, and being Arlo Guthries' buddy, I found some pics of them together from recent years. To me, it's funny how times have changed, in the early days of Hollywood, you could pay a quarter to watch a movie being made, and it was entirely possible that you could be cast as an 'extra'. All that guy had to do, was BE Arlo Guthries' pal, and he got in a movie!

And yes I'm jealous, I wanna be in a movie! Movies like this PROVE that there's no requirement for actual talent! Great site, keep-up the good work!

I have to agree with Adam K.; the movie is an extended, elaborate apology for Arlo's disenchantment with the hippie scene. Ray and Alice's infidelity is sad & disturbing because that's what free love really looks like; the funeral is unenjoyable because it's just not fun when your friends die of overdoses. I think these filmmakers would agree with your assessment of the essential ugliness and self-centeredness of cliques like the Alice's Restaurant crew.

At the end of the movie, Arlo & his girlfriend leave, angering his hosts at the decommissioned church. Ray & his ilk don't want to admit that their lifestyle is sour; Arlo's departure isolates them and gives them a dose of reality. The film's pacing is slow, certainly, but it manages to be at once harshly realistic and a little wistful. . . it documents the spirit of the times, and that's why I think it's a good movie.

My take from this flick was: here was Woody, dying of Huntington's disease which was an inherited condition. And here was Arlo and the big question "Would he get it too?" Was Arlo looking at the face of his own death? (This was before DNA testing)